be as that may be, but all i've been saying is nobodsy knows the accurate statistic.

Yes, they do. Do they know down to the person exactly how many people self identify as homosexual in the US? Probably not. Is it possible they know how many within ±5%? Absolutely. And accuracy is defined as a range. For example, ±5% would be a measure of accuracy.

Statistics are used to determine facts about a population (of anything) by taking a sampling. It saves the effort of observing every person, or part (in manufacturing). And the accuracy of the facts is determined by the sample size. When determining something like how many homos there are in a population, you have to make sure your sampling is not just big enough, but also random enough. This is the hard part. Sampling too much in one area is just one way to get skewed results. But professionally designed and executed surveys should avoid those pitfalls.

I think the biggest issue with the accuracy of these statistics is that this is a subject about which folks may not be very honest. I guarantee you there are people (mostly men, I would guess) out there that will never admit they've had homosexual feelings and/or experiences, no matter how anonymous the survey is purported to be. The only question is, how much do these holdouts skew the results?

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

I think the biggest issue with the accuracy of these statistics is that this is a subject about which folks may not be very honest. I guarantee you there are people (mostly men, I would guess) out there that will never admit they've had homosexual feelings and/or experiences, no matter how anonymous the survey is purported to be. The only question is, how much do these holdouts skew the results?

That is what i'm trying to say. I'm sorry Screwtape, but statistics are flawed, very flawed.

Logged

Me:What are you looking at Eminem?Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

I think the biggest issue with the accuracy of these statistics is that this is a subject about which folks may not be very honest. I guarantee you there are people (mostly men, I would guess) out there that will never admit they've had homosexual feelings and/or experiences, no matter how anonymous the survey is purported to be. The only question is, how much do these holdouts skew the results?

Then we are talking about two different ideas of accuracy. I am talking about who self identifies and the statistical confidence of that. From that perspective, those in denial do not skew the results at all. They do not self identify.

You are talking about their deepest, most hidden desires. Does that really matter for the purposes of the survey? I don't know. I'd say, probably not. Those who deny homo feelings are not invested in gay marriage, do not have to worry about gay rights, etc and so are not part of the demographic being quantified.

But I do agree that sexuality is not black and white. I think it is a sliding scale.

As a fast food chain, their level of quality and consistency is superb, but I definitely don't agree with their openly anti gay views. Just seems bad for business IMO, but they thrive in conservative states so I doubt their statements will have little impact in those states but I can see them having some problems expanding north and rightly so. I don't see a problem with them personally being Christian conservatives but being anti gay is just uncool.

Florida is a moderate state, or "purple" as some refer to it politically. They may have problems here. It's mainly red on top but in the middle and in the south (especially Key West), it's a pretty dark purple.

Then we are talking about two different ideas of accuracy. I am talking about who self identifies and the statistical confidence of that. From that perspective, those in denial do not skew the results at all. They do not self identify.

You are talking about their deepest, most hidden desires. Does that really matter for the purposes of the survey? I don't know. I'd say, probably not. Those who deny homo feelings are not invested in gay marriage, do not have to worry about gay rights, etc and so are not part of the demographic being quantified.

But I do agree that sexuality is not black and white. I think it is a sliding scale.

Well, if we are only considering those who self-identify as homosexual then my point is moot. However, if we are trying to determine a true and accurate representation of the actual percentage of the populace that is homosexual, we must consider the variable of people who would otherwise be considered homosexual refusing to classify themselves as such. I severely doubt that the Ted Haggards or Larry Craigs of the world would ever own up to their true desires. So the question is, how many people fall into this category[1]? Is it even a statistically significant number?

I suggest that it is a significant number, and would (admittedly unscientifically) guess that whatever the number of self-identifying homosexuals is, there is perhaps half again as many unwilling to out themselves. Maybe more.

The bottom line is that we will never really know the true percentage of gays out there as long as homosexuality remains so persecuted and stigmatized in our society.

The criteria for determining what could be considered "homosexual" is very subjective, as well. Is it fair to classify someone as gay or even bi if they are turned on by the same sex, but have never acted upon it? What about someone who is primarily or solely turned on by the same sex but chooses to live asexually? Definitely another gray area.

As a fast food chain, their level of quality and consistency is superb, but I definitely don't agree with their openly anti gay views. Just seems bad for business IMO, but they thrive in conservative states so I doubt their statements will have little impact in those states but I can see them having some problems expanding north and rightly so. I don't see a problem with them personally being Christian conservatives but being anti gay is just uncool.

I don't think religious affiliation has any place in business unless the product happens to be a religious product of some kind & even then I would think anyone would have a right to purchase that product.

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

However, if we are trying to determine a true and accurate representation of the actual percentage of the populace that is homosexual, we must consider the variable of people who would otherwise be considered homosexual refusing to classify themselves as such.

You touched on the problem with this in your footnote. Homosexual is a lable that is convenient and useful in some instances, but it is not an objective quality. Because of that, I don't think you can speculate on how many "real" homosexist but aren't being counted. The only "actual" homosexuals that matter are the ones who admit it. As I said, the ones who don't are not part of the group.

That is not a problem with statistics. That is a problem with psychology.

At the bottom of the article they have a bunch of videos of LGBT ads, and although I'd never seen any of them air on tv (some of them were banned) they were really interesting to watch. My favorites included:

Well, it seems to me that there are quite a few companies out there who recognize the the LGBT population is significant enough to be a market they want to court...

Both my 81 year old mom and I love ads that show sexual diversity, and smile at them all. Why? Because we have family and friends who are lgbt. The pro-gay market is far larger than just those who are, themselves, lgbt.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

The only "actual" homosexuals that matter are the ones who admit it. As I said, the ones who don't are not part of the group.

I understand and agree somewhat with where you are coming from on this, but I think it is short sighted to write off the entire "closeted" portion of the gay populace. There are plenty of people out there who know they are gay, but due to various outside pressures or influences are unwilling or reasonably unable to identify themselves as such. So while these folks are not necessarily "part of the group", they certainly can and do exercise their influence by voting for/against candidates and measures that support/oppose their views, by donating time or money to gay-friendly organizations, and by being very particular about where they might purchase a chicken sandwich.

Jetson brings up a great point with the parallels to atheism. I live in the buckle of the bible belt. As vocal and expressive with my views as I am on this forum, I don't walk around here with my atheism on my sleeve. If someone tells me to have a "blessed day," instead of ripping them a new one, I just say, "Thanks, same to you." As a relatively recent convert to atheism, perhaps this is a reflex that will change in time, but for now its just a whole lot easier to go along with it, at least in such situations where it is relatively harmless to do so. So I guess I'm a "closeted atheist," but that does not mean that I cannot exercise any influence.

Our local Chik-Fil-A was completely jam packed with traffic yesterday evening. On one side, it was a disgusting site to behold, thinking that perhaps all of those people were there to support bigotry and homophobia. But then I started thinking that there may have been people there just supporting free speech - you know, the kind of free speech that we hold so dearly, that allows the owner of a business to openly and actively speak against and fund efforts to deny human rights.

I decided that most were there to support homophobia and bigotry. Fuck those Christians. If they can't stand strong against homophobia and same-sex marriage, then they don't deserve any respect at all for their religion.

So while these folks are not necessarily "part of the group", they certainly can and do exercise their influence by voting for/against candidates and measures that support/oppose their views, by donating time or money to gay-friendly organizations, and by being very particular about where they might purchase a chicken sandwich.

I think we're off track here. My involvement in this thread has been to help Tim understand a couple of things. First, his outrage with Frank was misplaced. Second, to give him some background on statistics so he is aware of things like accuracy.

My point about whom to count was to illustrate the reliability of statistics. It is possible to know the size of a subcategory of a population by sampling/ surveying, if it is done correctly. And the definition of that subcategory all depends on why you are counting. If the goal is to understand a demographic - homosexual men and women - for political messaging, then the ones who are in denial and do not think of themselves as gay are not your target audience and should not be counted. While they may sometimes engage in homosexual acts, they are not members of the gay community and not part of this demographic.

Closet gays - those who think of them selves as gay and may secretly "indulge" but publicly portray themselves as straight - may be part of that demographic and are not being "written off" - at least, not by me. They would have an opportunity to be privately and confidentially counted. If they chose to falsely answer, they are writing themselves off and are effectively excluding themselves from the community.

Our local Chik-Fil-A was completely jam packed with traffic yesterday evening. On one side, it was a disgusting site to behold, thinking that perhaps all of those people were there to support bigotry and homophobia. But then I started thinking that there may have been people there just supporting free speech - you know, the kind of free speech that we hold so dearly, that allows the owner of a business to openly and actively speak against and fund efforts to deny human rights.

I felt disgusted as well. IMO it's not a matter of free speech. I was debating one of my friends all night last night and this was something he couldn't understand. I'm sure some people out there are all up in arms over what the CEO said. I'm not. You would have to be living under a rock to not know Chick-fil-A was a religious company with Christian values. What really shocked me was following the money trail of their donations. That was what I found so appalling. Yes the CEO's speech is what brought my attention to the anti-gay agendas but the root of my concern wasn't the speech itself. It amazes me how the masses don't either know this story or don't believe it to be true.

My friend last night told me that the tax document from CFA's charity was a fraud. Even after I showed him where the IRS confirms that the source of the document was legitimate. He said it was illegal for those records to be released. When I showed him where the IRS explains the Freedom of Information Act he thought that too was a lie. Because you can't believe anything you see on the internet. It has to be on a national news outlet. Because the reporters are who we should trust and not the IRS or Guidestar as a legitimate source of information.

I decided that most were there to support homophobia and bigotry. Fuck those Christians. If they can't stand strong against homophobia and same-sex marriage, then they don't deserve any respect at all for their religion.

I'm with you on this. My friend decided to "pull the race card"... Ya know, "What do you expect? It took 200 years to end slavery! Why are these gays rushing things?"

That was when I lost faith in humanity. It was almost funny last night, but ya know I could cry it's so sad.

Logged

Thank you for considering my point of view; however wrong it may be to you.

If the goal is to understand a demographic - homosexual men and women - for political messaging, then the ones who are in denial and do not think of themselves as gay are not your target audience and should not be counted. While they may sometimes engage in homosexual acts, they are not members of the gay community and not part of this demographic.

Closet gays - those who think of them selves as gay and may secretly "indulge" but publicly portray themselves as straight - may be part of that demographic and are not being "written off" - at least, not by me. They would have an opportunity to be privately and confidentially counted. If they chose to falsely answer, they are writing themselves off and are effectively excluding themselves from the community.

Again, you bring up some very good points, and for purposes of demographic marketing you are mostly correct, although I would argue that gay-targeted marketing would most likely appeal to both in and out-of-closet gays.

But demographics, shmemographics! The only thing I'm trying to address is that there are various groups loudly proclaiming a specific percentage (the numbers skew high or low, usually depending on the political persuasion of the group) of the population is gay, when it seems impossible to determine a reliable number given today's societal climate. Maybe I'm just uber paranoid, but if I was desperate to keep a secret that I feared would ruin my life if known, I would never own up to it. Even in a "private and confidential" survey. And I'm not even gay, but I can imagine how utterly difficult it must be to live with that pressure.

But regardless of what the actual numbers might be, gays should have equal rights, including the right to marry, simply because it is the right thing to do. It shouldn't matter that they have a strong or weak voting block, or a powerful presence in Washington, or whatever (and I don't mean to imply that you disagree, Tape). No one should have to live in fear because of who they love.

Logged

Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".